Staff member (Speaker 2) told district committee and board members that the district is considering two school-calendar options to accommodate a possible midyear move of Grades 6–8 into a new high school building if construction is completed in 2025–26.

The staff presentation outlined a traditional schedule (option A) and an alternative (option B) that shifts a midwinter break to coincide with Presidents Day week in February. "The change becomes evident when you take a look at February," Speaker 2 said, adding that moving during the Presidents Day week "gives us a combination of activity days that we could have that we would be asynchronous so that we don't lose hours." The asynchronous days would be used to move students and staff while still meeting state instructional-time requirements, the staff member said.

Why it matters: a midyear move raises operational and instructional concerns — including orientation time for middle school students, state testing timing, teacher preparation and staffing, technology and furniture transfers, and family schedules. The staff member said the February move would provide two to three weeks of orientation before PSSA testing so students can learn routines at the new site.

Key details from the discussion:
- Option B would schedule the transfer for the week of Presidents Day to combine several activity/asynchronous days for moving logistics and orientation. Staff described the week as allowing moving time from around Feb. 14 through Feb. 20.
- Staff recommended a firm decision deadline in December: "The decision made by December" would be the district's drop-dead date to confirm the midyear move, Speaker 2 said. If the criteria are not met by that date, the district would default to the traditional calendar (option A) or bring a calendar change back to the board in January for further action.
- Construction timing and contractor schedules are controlling factors. The staff member said the district is "speaking with" contractors and that meeting the December deadline would depend on those schedules; if the deadline is missed, the move would not occur midyear.
- Staff has not yet fully shared the specific calendar options with teachers; the staff member said, "I have not shared this option these options with staff... Some staff don't wanna move. Some staff would rather start the beginning of the year. Others are okay with them halfway through. So it's really... fifty-fifty."
- Board members and the staff noted trade-offs: teachers would need classroom preparation time (one speaker noted coming in on Aug. 1 to prepare rooms), while some students and families might welcome the move but others could be anxious or face scheduling conflicts.
- The staff also discussed how option B could allow preapproved preplanned trips to be excused while students complete asynchronous assignments, and emphasized that any asynchronous day structure must still meet state counting rules for instructional days.

Next steps: staff said they will revise the proposals, examine counting/flex-day implications and teacher-day scheduling, and return an updated calendar option at a work session for full board discussion. The staff member referenced prior precedent for setting a move deadline when a previous building transition was done in 2016–17 but said details will be clarified in the revised proposal.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt; the board did not take a final action during the discussed session.